SALARY ADMINISTRATION POLICY REVIEW
(04-16-04 Working Notes)
The policy (04:030) is vague, open to interpretation, and under defined. Significant amounts of administrative discretion are built into the policy. So much so that there is really know way to verify if, or how, the policy has been implemented.
-To achieve 100% of CUPA regional averages by discipline/rank.
-To achieve 85% of CUPA regional averages for individuals.
“appropriate peer institutions” are defined by University Salary Review Committee
CUPA monies are pulled from salary increase pool prior to 70/30 calculations. The amount, or %, of money committed to this is determined by the president. In past, with a 4% salary increase pool, .5% has been devoted to CUPA adjustments and 3.5% reserved for 70/30 calculations.
Monies reserved for promotion based raises, hiring of new faculty and “adjustmenst necessary because of changing market conditions are also pulled prior to establishing the 70/30 pool.
Savings from the replacement of retiring faculty with junior faculty may or may not be returned to the pool of money available for faculty salaries. (recently these savings have been applied to increasing costs of health expenses of retirees.
All faculty receiving an evaluation of 3.0 or higher are eligible for the across the board portion of salary increases.
Evaluation units (typically colleges à departments) receive proportion of pool equal to proportion of total salaries. If this policy is not carried out, reasons will be given to head of evaluation unit. Information is not necessarily extended to individuals.
An OLS regression model is used to calculate “merit” raises. These calculations are done within each evaluation unit.
“the precise methodology … selected by the President”.
?????????? This is an example of absolutely unnecessary leeway. President is going to choose simplest method-averaging of 2/3/4…years.
Responsibilities of University Salary Review Committee:
-President has received all information he has needed. No raises this year; so, no need for report. This year raises are priority but April 1 deadline(?) has passed. This is attributed to “slipping up”.
CUPA schools-at complete discretion of committee. There is no objection to recommending use of COPLAC (or other data base).
Annual reports are important for reasons apart from actual CUPA adjustments. (credibility)
CUPA allocations to colleges and library proportionate to respective deviations. Allocations to individuals made by Dean (with Provost approval). May be applied to anyone under 100%.
Guidelines are not listed in order of importance.
Presidential monitoring and report-“No raises” was this year’s report.
1. Appoint committee made up of faculty (senate appointed) and administrative representatives. Chair appointed by senate.
2. Explicate commitment (%/$) to CUPA.
3. Mechanism for faculty input in distribution decisions (CUPA, 70/30, variations.)
4. Recommitment to annual reports.